THE CONTROVERSY OVER REVISING ROALD DAHL’S NOVELS IS YET ANOTHER INSTANCE OF PERFORMATIVE ACTIVISM
Roald Dahl is considered one of the most prolific children’s writers of his time and his works have been beloved by children and adults for decades. Despite widespread love and nostalgia for the author, Dahl’s books are being edited to remove any potentially offensive language.
In February, Puffin Books found themselves at the center of heavy controversy after announcing that they would release newly revised Roald Dahl novels. Puffin Books hired sensitivity readers, employees specifically tasked with identifying problematic content, to rewrite and even remove content that Puffin “deemed offensive”, so Dahl’s works “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”.
According to an investigation by The Telegraph, fan-favourites such as Matilda, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Twits, and seven others were subject to hundreds of revisions which included omissions of the words “fat”, “ugly”, and “hag”. Furthermore, any language relating to gender identity, race, mental health, and physical appearances was altered or removed.
In some cases, completely new lines were added. For instance, the following passage from The Witches, “You can’t go round pulling the hair of every lady you meet, even if she is wearing gloves. Just you try it and see what happens” was replaced with, “Besides, there are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that”.
Even illustrator Quentin Blake’s drawings weren’t immune to scrutiny. Notably, images of Mike Teavee from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were altered to no longer include toy pistols.
This controversy reignited the time-old censorship debate with several prominent figures, such as British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Queen Camilla Parker-Bowles, and author Salman Rushdie, all chiming in to call the move an act of censorship that threatens free speech.
After receiving backlash for the decision, Puffin announced they would release the Roald Dahl Classic Collection, alongside their revised editions. This decision was done in an effort “to keep the author’s classic texts in print” and offer “readers the choice to decide how they experience Roald Dahl’s magical, marvellous stories.”
Dahl’s works aren’t the only classic novels that are being reworked. In February 2023, Ian Fleming’s estate announced that similar changes would be made to the James Bond series to remove racist language. In March 2021, Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced the cessation of publication and sales of six Dr. Suess books due to both offensive plots and imagery.
Most coverage of Puffin’s decision focused on the ethics of using sensitivity readers to change an author’s work posthumously, with many outlets labeling the practice an obvious example of censorship.
I’ve found compelling arguments on both sides. Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America, was quick to tweet her disagreement with the edits. “If we start down the path of trying to correct for perceived slights instead of allowing readers to receive and react to books as written, we risk distorting the work of great authors and clouding the essential lens that literature offers on society,” she said.
Opinion writer Matthew Walther explains that there is precedence for publishers revising published works, even after the author’s death. He mentions The Great Gatsby as a prominent example, where several edits have been made since its 1925 publication to make the story’s chronology more cohesive.
I feel the real issue this incident highlighted was Puffin’s refusal to both condemn the actions of Roald Dahl, a problematic author in his time, and highlight works from minority authors — either option would prove far less profitable for them.
Dahl was a vocal anti-semite and racist throughout his life, and in a 1983 interview (while speaking to a Jewish journalist) said, “there is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity … even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”
When he gave the money-loving, evil Witches eastern European Yiddish accents, or based the Oompa-Loompas on African Pygmies, he was knowingly and unapologetically perpetuating his discriminatory beliefs. And while Puffin managed to recognize that his work is infected with offensive stereotypes, their choice to simply edit out what they deem “offensive” highlights the publisher’s failure to comprehend the extent to which Dahl’s beliefs are entrenched in his work.
Puffin also bypassed an even better solution, which would be to publish stories written by and about members of minority groups. Such stories will undoubtedly decrease the amount of offensive content in children’s literature, as children of different minority groups could feel accurately represented in the media. But that choice would also require Puffin to renounce Dahl’s works, effectively losing a major source of revenue.
Instead, the publisher made the disappointing choice to sell two copies of Dahl’s works, the originals, and the edited versions. This debacle speaks to a larger problem within the publishing industry, that of poor representation for many minority groups. The industry is dominated by “the big four houses” (Penguin Random House, Macmillan, Hachette Book Group, and HarperCollins), of which 89 per cent of authors are white. The lack of diversity in the publishing industry explains exactly why they must hire sensitivity readers, whose sole purpose is to try and avoid offending minority readers, rather than creating content they can actually relate to.
Unsurprisingly, rather than using this incident as an opportunity to make real change to the content that is marketed to children, Puffin chose a performative action that not only protected a major source of profit, but gave them an entirely new one — a move that was only ever for their benefit, not their readers.
